Standing Committee E

[Mr. Peter Pike in the Chair]

Housing Bill

Peter Pike: For the guidance of the Committee, let me say that a Division is expected in the House at 4 o'clock, at which point I will suspend our proceedings for 15 minutes. There will be another Division at 6 o'clock. What to do about that is in the hands of the Committee: if we are still sitting, I will again adjourn for 15 minutes.Clause 120 Meaning of ''residential property'' and ''home information pack''

Clause 120 - Meaning of ''residential property'' and ''home information pack''

Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 336, in
clause 120, page 84, line 20, leave out 'or may become'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 337, in
clause 121, page 84, line 23, leave out 'first'.
 No. 404, in 
clause 121, page 84, line 24, at end insert— 
 '( ) The Secretary of State may make regulations defining the meaning of marketing for this purpose'.
 No. 338, in 
clause 121, page 84, line 26, leave out 
 'it is taken off the market or' 
 and insert 
 'the agent's instructions are terminated in writing or it is.'.
 No. 339, in 
clause 121, page 84, line 28, leave out 
 'or to a section of the public.'.
 No. 391, in 
clause 125, page 86, line 11, at end insert— 
 '(5) The seller does not become responsible under subsection (1) by marketing the property to an individual who is known to him, by virtue of any informal conversation with that individual.'.

Matthew Green: When I told my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) that, as he had to attend the Chamber to debate the forthcoming local finance settlement, I would happily take over from wherever he had got to, I had no idea that we would be discussing only the second group of amendments to this part of the Bill.
 The amendments are designed to discover the precise meaning of the wide-ranging and unclear set of definitions that the Government are using. Amendment No. 336 would remove the words ''or may become''. Subsection (2) states that the seller's pack is 
''a collection of documents relating to the property or the terms on which it is or may become available for sale.''
 With reference to becoming available for sale, at what point must a seller's pack be produced?

Sydney Chapman: I think that the phrase is needed. If it is removed, a home information pack could not be assembled until the property was put on the market. Common sense dictates that it is much better if people draw up their information pack after they have decided to sell their property. That would cut down on unnecessary wastes of time.

Matthew Green: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. The problem with his view is that it will appear to be almost a requirement for householders to draw up such a pack when they are only thinking about making a property available for sale. It costs money to produce the packs, and it seems odd to force people to draw one up when they are merely deciding whether to sell their house. People often wonder about whether to sell their home without subsequently deciding to put it on the market. However, subsection (2) refers to homes that
''may become available for sale.''
 This is a probing amendment: we want to discover what the Minister understands that term to mean. He may be able to reassure me on the point.

Andrew Selous: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern, which I think the amendment might address, about people who are approached to sell their property out of the blue? What if a person is not seeking to sell their house, but somebody comes up to them one day and says, ''I would like to make an offer for your house''? We do not seem to have any answers for that situation.

Matthew Green: That is a very valid question, to which the Minister must give a full response.

John Hayes: I want to follow up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman). We can go two ways: either we say that the pack should not be prepared until the house is on the market—later amendments suggest that periods such as seven or 14 days should be allowed for the preparation of plans—or we say that pack must be available when the house becomes available for sale. It seems that the hon. Gentleman is somewhere between the two, as my hon. Friend suggested. If the amendment was accepted, he could not have the rest of the provision. There is an argument for getting rid of the whole provision and starting again, but the amendment is not well drawn in that respect. If the hon. Gentleman explains amendment No. 338, I can tell him where that is flawed, too. I can see his point, but the wording of the amendment is not helpful.

Matthew Green: Well, it is nice to listen to interventions about amendments that I have not reached yet. The hon. Gentleman knows our position full well: we would not introduce seller's packs at all.
 The second amendment would establish exactly what the Government mean by the clause—

Richard Younger-Ross: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Matthew Green: Certainly. I can see that this is going to be a long debate.

Richard Younger-Ross: I wish to clarify matters. There is a fear about the definition of something being put on the market. If I announce to my friends in the pub that I am thinking of selling my house, am I in breach of the law because I have not assembled the home buyer's pack? That is my hon. Friend's question.

Matthew Green: Amendment No. 337 deals with that point. It is a probing amendment to find out the definition of ''first made public''. For example, if someone mentions to his friend in the pub after a few pints of beer that he plans to sell his house, is that the point at which such information is ''first made public''? We are supported by the Law Society, which is concerned about the meaning of that statement. The explanatory notes make a distinction in respect of stating among family and friends that a property is or may come up for sale, but if a prospective seller speaks to his family and friends too loudly in public, will he be caught by the definition? We want clarification.
 Amendment No. 338 is an attempt to clarify the definition of 
''is taken off the market''
 by requiring written instructions to the agent. It would make clear what the Government mean by the phrase. The explanatory notes state that it is 
''an ordinary expression that should be given its usual meaning'',
 but that is a semi-meaningless explanation.

John Hayes: I do not want to be too unkind to the hon. Gentleman, which is why I warned him that I might make known my doubts about the amendment. It is grouped with an amendment that relates to a situation in which someone might inadvertently or deliberately advertise that he is selling his house down the pub—a sort of public sale. I remind the Committee that the phrase
''agent's instructions are terminated in writing''
 rules out anyone selling his house privately. The amendment states specifically that an agent ends the arrangement, not an individual. We have lurched from the man down the pub to someone who is obliged to involve an agent if he wants to take the house off the market.

Matthew Green: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I remind him that we come from the starting point of not wanting the packs at all. We want to probe the Government about their definitions. The fact that the amendments are grouped together is not a choice of mine; it is the result of the Chairmen's judgment. I would not begin to question that—nor, I hope, would the hon. Gentleman. There is a contradiction, but I do not see that as a particular problem. One of our jobs in Committee is to probe the Government on what they mean, for the benefit of the public and practitioners. We should do so in case this part of the Bill becomes law. I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman is attempting to do is fair.

John Hayes: It does seem like ganging up, but just to kill off this pitiful moment once and for all, the
 Council of Mortgage Lenders, to which I defer in this matter, says:
''The amendment does seem flawed in that it assumes that an agent will be employed in each and every sale, not taking account of the circumstances''
 created when an individual attempts to sell his or her own home. It would be better for the hon. Gentleman to acknowledge that he has made an error, so we can move on quickly.

Matthew Green: I am delighted that the Council of Mortgage Lenders takes such a close interest in amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats. We do not want to prevent people from selling their houses privately. I hope that that is sufficient clarification for the hon. Gentleman.
 As is often the case, the wording of our amendments—and, indeed, many Conservative ones—is not technically perfect. My colleagues and I are not parliamentary draftsmen. Getting provisions technically perfect is the job of the Government. The point of the amendments is to raise an issue. I am sure that the Minister can do a perfectly good job of rubbishing the amendments from a technical point of view if he wants to, but much of the Committee has been taken up much more constructively than in rubbishing the technical aspects of amendments. I hope that that will continue, not least because it will speed up our proceedings. We have spent a long time talking about such aspects already. 
 Amendment No. 339 is an attempt to get an explanation from the Government of what 
''a section of the public''
 means. Clause 121(3) says: 
''A fact is made public when it is advertised or otherwise communicated (in whatever form and by whatever means) to the public or to a section of the public.''
 Are we back to the friend in the pub? Can the phrase refer to one person? I hope that the Government will explain. In a sense, the words are superfluous, because what is the difference between ''the public'' and a ''section of the public''? If we removed the words, 
''or to a section of the public'',
 would it alter the meaning of the paragraph? I suspect that there is not that much difference between the phrases. The term ''the public'' is, I believe, used regularly in Bills and is not meant to refer to every single person, so presumably it always refers to just ''a section of the public'', but I would like the Minister to justify including those words. Perhaps they are simply some of those superfluous words that the Under-Secretary of State made it clear that the Government quite like. 
 Amendment No. 391 relates to the conversation with the person in the pub. It would amend not the provisions relating to an agent, but those relating to the individual acting for him or herself. It would insert: 
''The seller does not become responsible under subsection (1) by marketing the property to an individual who is known to him, by virtue of any informal conversation with that individual.''
 That is just a means of making the Government's intentions clear; I am sure that they want that, too. I am sure that the amendment is worded badly and all 
 that nonsense, but we do at least need clarification from the Minister that such a case is not intended to be caught. The right hon. Gentleman does not mean that a person who says over a pint, ''I'm going to sell my house'', but who does not have a seller's pack, has broken the law.

John Hayes: I think that we have spoken enough about the amendments, and, like the hon. Gentleman, I do not want to delay the Committee unduly. However, I need to say a word about our amendment No. 404.
 The hon. Gentleman made an important point in terms of defining what ''marketing'' could reasonably be said to be. He is right that in a private sale, putting a note in the newsagent's window, for example, might reasonably be regarded as a kind of marketing. On the other hand, would standing on a chair in the proverbial pub in Ludlow and saying, ''I'm thinking of sellin' me 'ouse, mate. What d'you think? Are you interested?'' constitute a marketing initiative? One might argue that it would. It might not be terribly sophisticated, and it might be ineffective, but it could be deemed to be marketing. The Bill is unclear. 
 As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the measure applies to private sales. A significant number of transactions in the housing market are private sales. We tend to think of selling houses as exclusively about selling a house through an estate agent, but that is not always the case. Therefore, because of the importance of marketing to this clause—it triggers all sorts of other concerns—the Government need to be crystal clear about what constitutes marketing. Clarification is the purpose of amendment No. 404. It is generous in that it suggests that the Secretary of State define marketing in regulations. It is not something that can necessarily be defined straightforwardly in the Bill. There is an argument for that, but it is more appropriate—because it might be quite complex and might need to illustrated by examples—to define it in regulations. 
 By way of support—not that I am so nervous about my own interpretation that I need to draw on third parties continually; I only draw on them because they show how apposite, well worded and thought through our amendments are—The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors argues: 
''As a person will not be able to market a property without a pack, there needs to be a sharper definition of what constitutes marketing''.
 The RICS has commissioned a paper defining the marketing of residential property in England and Wales. When that paper is published, it might go some way to assisting Ministers in framing the regulations referred to in our amendment. Thus, I propose our amendment, which is part of the group—

Peter Pike: Order. You speak to your amendment.

John Hayes: Thus, I speak to our amendment, which is part of the group. Of course, I will not be able to propose it separately, Mr. Pike. I might ask that it be taken separately, but that will depend on your
 discretion and on the Minister's response to my brief words.

Peter Pike: I will try to be of help. If you give me notice that you wish to move an amendment formally at the appropriate stage, I am always prepared to accept that.

John Hayes: That is a further illustration of your wisdom and generosity, Mr. Pike, for which I am very grateful.

Sydney Chapman: I made a comment on the first amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) and I need not come back to that. Obviously the Minister will tell us about amendment No. 404. I have always wanted to be a Minister, but I have never been successful except as the wrong sort of Minister—I was a Government Whip for six and half years.
 I take into consideration the fair point that if the word ''public'' is used, we have to show that the house is advertised universally to the public. Strangely, the correct definition of the public is that if something is in the London Gazette—which I have never seen—it is supposed to be for public consumption. I presume that the reason why the Government or the parliamentary draftsmen have put in 
''or . . . a section of the public''
 is because, in all likelihood, the property for sale will be advertised by the estate agent or in a select periodical. However, that is for the Minister to answer. 
 I want to row heavily behind amendment No. 391, tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow, and indeed amendment No. 404 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). It is essential that the Bill contain a clearer definition of where the provisions will operate. I have it written down, but it is not clear to me whether a property is for sale, or put on the market, if it is transferred privately to another person for an agreed sum. I will give a brief example. The Minister has excited us with his many tours d'horizon, which always settle back in St. Reatham. I want to take him a bit further downmarket and down the road from his constituency, to Batterséa, where I have a very modest pied-à-terre. When my time here is fulfilled—and that time is coming closer and closer—[Hon. Members: ''Oh no!'']—I fully intend to put that little property on the market. At that time I will take the precaution of calling it south Chelsea, not Batterséa, because that might give it a better chance. 
 It is a very small, ground-floor property with one-and-a-half floors above it—a loft extension—owned by someone whom I have got to know well. We have an understanding that I will give him first refusal if, and when, I need to dispose of the property. That seems an eminently sensible thing to do. If that happened, he would probably go to a friend or and estate agent and quietly ask: ''How much do you think the property below mine is worth?'' I would ask an estate agent the same thing. If we were sensible, we would not go back to either of those estate agents to sell the property. Instead, if we agreed on a figure, then there would be a mutual exchange of contracts. That is just an example. 
 I would like to have it confirmed that that could take place without triggering the provisions of part 5 of this Bill. It ought to be written into the record. I have found many instances in which we could disregard the minutes of our debates if the Government made certain situations clearer. That would be very helpful. I assume that if someone uses the internet to try to sell their property, that is within the provisions of part 5. We need a more defined position from the Minister concerning these two instances.

Keith Hill: The Committee will be aware that the amendments range across clauses 120 and 121, so we are making some progress.
 Clause 121 defines the circumstances in which a property is regarded as having been put on the market, and the period during which it is regarded as remaining on the market. Property is considered to be put on the market when the fact that it is, or may become available, for sale is first made public. 
 Notwithstanding the generosity of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings—I am sure this will come as no surprise to him—I do accept that we need to offer further definition of marketing. However, I hope to clarify the Government's understanding of the expression in the course of my remarks. 
 I may be able to assist the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet—my old jousting partner—who is also, it appears, a resident of Batterséa. He said that he was thinking of describing the area as south Chelsea. That would be somewhat more plausible than the case of a certain educational institution in my constituency. It is called the South Chelsea School of English, although stands opposite Brixton tube station. Those who arrive at the South Chelsea School of English for the first time must get a shock when they discover its location—however, I must not get distracted. 
 The hon. Gentleman was unnecessarily humble when he said that a Whip, as he has been, was the wrong sort of Minister. Nothing could be further from the truth. He will undoubtedly have graced the Dispatch Box, and being a Whip is the most honourable of ministerial undertakings. As a former deputy Chief Whip, I recall that great motto with which he, too, will be familiar: once a Whip, always a Whip. 
 Let me immediately allay the hon. Gentleman's concerns by providing two explanations. A private transaction between two individuals in the proverbial pub does not constitute being put on the market. I do not think that I could be clearer than that. Equally, use of the internet certainly would be interpreted as a marketing exercise. 
 I shall turn in rather more detail to the generous amendment, No. 404. That would provide a power for the Secretary of State to define by regulation what marketing entails. I fully acknowledge that sellers and their agents should be clear about when the home information pack obligations begin and end. Clause 
 121 does that by defining ''on the market''. A property is put on the market when 
''the fact that it is or may become available for sale is, with a view to marketing the property, first made public . . . by or on behalf of the seller.''
 A property remains on the market until it is taken off or sold. Further on in part 5, clauses 123 to 125 build on that and set out the circumstances in which the seller and the person acting as estate agent are responsible for marketing the property, and when that responsibility arises and ceases. That is important because the person or persons responsible for marketing the property are the persons to whom the home information pack duties apply. 
 We are satisfied that the definitions in clause 121 are sufficient for the purposes of this part of the Bill. However, I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify further the difference between marketing activity, which triggers the home information pack duties, and pre-marketing activity, which does not. That is particularly important to persons acting as estate agents. 
 Under clause 130, the home information pack duties in relation to people acting as estate agent are triggered by any action taken with a view to marketing the property, which 
''communicates to any person in England and Wales . . . that the property is or may become available for sale''.
 That is necessary to ensure that agents do not seek to evade their duties by, for example, contacting a few individuals on their books who they know might be interested in the property, and not putting the property on the market by advertising its availability to the public at large or to a section of the public.

Matthew Green: The Minister has just said that that applies if estates agents do that to any person in England or Wales. Let us say an estate agent in Berwick-upon-Tweed—

Terry Rooney: That is in England.

Matthew Green: Yes. If that estate agent rang up someone in Scotland—

Andrew Selous: Jedburgh.

Matthew Green: In Jedburgh, for example, they could say, ''I've got a property coming on to the market.'' Alternatively, an estate agent in Dover could ring up someone in France—after all, buying properties across the European Union is becoming increasingly popular. Would that be outside the remit of the clause? Can the Minister clarify whether we are talking about just England and Wales?

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman represents a marcher constituency and is therefore alert to such boundary issues. However, the possible cases that he described are not caught by the Bill's provisions, which will apply to transactions in England and Wales. Therefore, I suppose that there could be a transaction between two parties in which the same obligation was not laid on both—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should not get too excited. He is frequently tempted
 along legislative byways rather than highways, and this is a byway.
 I am thinking this through, and it is my clear understanding that where a seller is operating in England the requirements of the law would apply to them. In other words, a seller in England who is in the process of marketing a property would be required to make available a home information pack. For a buyer in Scotland, that would be a matter of choice. I suspect that such buyers would want to avail themselves of it. 
 I now see where we are going. A seller in Scotland who is selling to a buyer in England would not be caught. Across the border between Jedburgh and Berwick, there might not be the same requirements. However, I feel that I can live with that.

Matthew Green: The Minister was passing down some byways of his own there. That was not what I was rising to say. I wanted clarification about, for example, where an estate agent in France is marketing a property in England, in much the same way as English estate agents market French properties for English buyers. Is the Minister saying that a French company marketing English properties would not need to produce seller's packs?

Keith Hill: I might not have caught the end of the hon. Gentleman's question, so if I do not answer it he will have to forgive me and perhaps come back to me on it.
 If a property is marketed in England and Wales, the estate agent will be responsible if he is in England and Wales. If a property is marketed in England and Wales and the estate agent is located abroad, the seller is responsible and must have a pack. I hope that that is helpful, and that it takes us a little further forward.

John Hayes: Just before the Minister carries on, will he give way?

Keith Hill: How can I resist the hon. Gentleman, who can hardly resist himself?

John Hayes: To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, I can resist anything but myself.
 The Minister has confused the Committee a little—I hope that that is not unkind. We now seem to have a situation where if an estate agent is situated in England and markets properties in France, those properties would have to have—[Interruption.] Okay, an estate agent in France who is marketing properties in England would have to have a pack—[Hon. Members: ''The seller would.''] So the seller in France does not need a pack, regardless of the fact that the property is in England, so properties in England will be sold without packs: is that right?

Peter Pike: Order. I must ensure that this debate is conducted properly, because Hansard will not be able to record some of these exchanges.

John Hayes: Well, let me put my question formally. Am I right in assuming that, depending on where the seller and estate agent are located, there will be a number of properties in England that do not have packs associated with them?

Keith Hill: I do not propose to pursue this matter much further, but let me try to clarify it. Where a
 property is marketed in England and Wales the seller or the agent operating on behalf of the seller is responsible for providing a home information pack. I hope that that is reasonably straightforward and clear.
 At first sight the provision in clause 130 might appear draconian and might appear to mean that agents would be caught, even if they just mentioned to employees, spouses or friends that a property were coming on the market, but that is not so. To trigger the pack duties, any action has to be 
''taken with a view to marketing the property''—
 in other words, the actions are a direct attempt to market the property. None of this is playing with words. 
 I am also conscious that there is concern among some estate agents that responding to an inquiry about a property, for example, could trigger the pack duties. A common example would be where someone saw the agent's car outside a property and phoned him to find out whether it was for sale. In such circumstances, if the agent replied that he had received instructions but could not market the property or arrange viewings until the pack was ready, he would not be doing something with a view to marketing the property. He could take the inquirer's details and get back to them when the pack was available. Obviously, the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) does not want to come in at this point. 
 I turn to the group of amendments introduced, a trifle uncomfortably, by the hon. Member for Ludlow, who began with an apology for the fact that they were not his and said that he inherited them from one of his mobile friends. I got the feeling that the hon. Gentleman would rather be somewhere else, judging from the frequent allusions to the pub. 
Richard Younger-Ross rose—

Keith Hill: Teignbridge wants to come in. How could I resist Teignbridge?

Richard Younger-Ross: I have to say that my mobile friends will think even less of me, because although I do not have the ability of bi-location, I have to be on the Front Bench next week and sit in the Fire and Rescue Services Bill Committee at the same time.
 I know that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings will deeply regret that I will not be here—[Hon. Members: ''He is not here.''] I am so sad that he has missed that.

Peter Pike: Order. Let us keep to the amendments.

Richard Younger-Ross: But the point of concern is this: if an elderly person is looking to sell and move to where they originated from, or retire to the south coast, it is likely that they will cogitate for a long period before deciding to actively sell their property. During that process they could on several occasions talk to their friends in the proverbial pub in Ludlow, down at the Darby and Joan, or in the Royal Air Forces Association club, about selling their property. They could, during that time, talk to agents about selling. Given what the Minister has said, I am concerned that that person could be caught
 attempting to sell their property. Can he confirm on the record that that would be deemed pre-marketing?

Keith Hill: By the way, may I say that we cherish the hon. Gentleman while he is here and regret the threat of his absence next week. We wish him all the best on that visit.
 I should like to allay the hon. Gentleman's concerns. In the event that a senior citizen, such as the one he described, were cogitating in the way he described—although possibly not in the situation of bi-location to which he has alluded—and were to have a conversation with friends about the sale of the property, that would not be construed as marketing, nor would an inquiry about whether an estate agent would be willing to market the property be deemed to be an act of marketing.

Robert Syms: With a new build project there is often advertising, such as appears in the Evening Standard, saying, ''Gracious living, 50 saunas, tennis courts'', and the rest of it. Perhaps the plans have gone in, but they are not talking about specific properties. Is that covered by marketing? Or will we be in a situation where, rather like a warning on a packet of cigarettes, we will have a beautiful picture of a desirable residence along with the words, ''This is not for sale''? I am just going through the process. At what point do the trigger arrangements start?

Keith Hill: As ever, the hon. Gentleman has raised a reasonable point, which I expect to come to immediately or in due course. As for whether advertising an estate in general terms, plans to develop an estate and lovely pictures of it constitutes marketing—no, that would not. It is at the point when specific details and invitations to purchase kick in that marketing may be deemed to occur.
 As for amendment No. 336 tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow, in light of the trenchant intervention by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, which was right, it may be unnecessary for me to do so, but I shall say a few words about the amendment. Its effect would be that, for the purposes of the Bill, a property would not be regarded as being put on the market until the point at which it was available for sale. In other words, if I have interpreted the amendment correctly, any earlier marketing activity by the seller would not constitute putting the property on the market and would not therefore be subject to the obligation to have a home information pack. 
 Even after listening to the hon. Gentleman, I am not sure why he would want to introduce such a provision. It would open up a potentially serious loophole which sellers could seek to exploit. If it were applied, a seller hoping to avoid the home information pack obligations could advertise that his property was likely to be available shortly and provide the address and other details. He would hope that a potential buyer would take note of that and seek to gain an advantage over other potential buyers by making a quick visit and putting in an offer. 
 As the property would not have been ''put on the market'', there would be no obligation on the seller to have a home information pack. For the sake of the consumer, we must not allow such a loophole to develop. The buyer could discover several weeks and several hundreds of pounds later that there were problems with the condition or searches that he would have known about immediately from the pack. As ever, the purpose of the home information pack is to provide up-front certainty and to protect the consumer. 
 In response to the hon. Member for Poole, clause 121, as it stands, would not mean that a house builder would have to have home information packs if it advertised that it was planning to build a new estate of houses and provided some general information about the types of home that would be available. The home information pack obligation would not kick in until the advertising identified the specific homes and their location. By that stage, marketing in earnest would usually be under way.

Matthew Green: Will the Minister give way?

Keith Hill: Ooh! I have obviously sparked off another chain of thought for the hon. Gentleman.

Matthew Green: What about the common situation in which a new estate is being built, there is a show home and people put down deposits on specific houses that are not yet completed? How can there be a full seller's pack on a house that has not finished being built?

Keith Hill: Aha. What a pity the hon. Gentleman was not in Committee for the two and a half hours this morning during which we dealt with that issue to our common enjoyment. I have no intention whatever to return to it.

Peter Pike: The Chairman would not let you even if you did want to return to it.

Keith Hill: But it was a good idea.
 Amendment No. 337 would remove the word ''first'' from clause 121. That would not have a major effect. It would just make it slightly less clear when the home information pack duties apply. The clause already states that if the fact that a property is for sale is made public, and it has not been made public before, the property will be on the market—and it states that more simply. 
 Clause 121 seeks to make it clear that a property that has been put on the market is regarded as remaining on the market, and therefore still subject to the home information pack obligations, until it is either taken off the market or sold. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet asked about that. The phrase ''taken off the market'' is not defined in the Bill, but it carries its common meaning. Essentially, a property is not off the market if marketing activity is still taking place. 
 Amendment No. 338 would change that. A property being marketed on behalf of the seller by an estate agent would be regarded as having been taken off the market as soon as the agent received a 
 letter from the seller withdrawing instructions. The property would be off the market even if the agent carried on marketing it, without instructions, in the hope of still achieving a sale. In other words, the amendment would terminate the estate agent's obligations to supply a HIP to a would-be buyer even though he was still marketing the property. That would result in a loss of protection to the buyer. I am slightly mystified as to why the hon. Member for Ludlow should want that. I am also mystified about the circumstances in which it is envisaged that that would occur. However, I am certain that this runs contrary to public understanding of when a property is taken off the market; it is completely at odds with clauses 124 and 125, and it would be a recipe for confusion. 
 As I said to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, the HIP obligations do not apply to private sales. I hope that that, and what I have to say about amendment No. 391, will allay the concerns of the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). Sales within the family or to friends or acquaintances would not be caught where the property is not marketed publicly. Where a property is marketed publicly, the pack obligations apply. Clause 121 provides that a property is put on the market when it is communicated publicly 
''to the public or to a section of the public.''
 Amendment No. 391 is unnecessary because an informal or even a formal conversation between a seller and another individual is not a communication to a section of the public. It would not trigger the home information pack obligations. I say again to the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire that if there is an entirely private transaction the home information pack is not required. In those circumstances, the old principle of caveat emptor prevails.

Andrew Selous: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. Will private sales' not being covered lead to any distortion in the market or to lack of transparency? As sales through estate agents will cost sellers more and involve delay, has his Department examined what the effects will be? Does he think that there will be a large increase in private sales? Will the market be distorted and less transparent, and will it function less well than it otherwise would?

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman should have a distinction in his mind between a private sale and a sale by a private person. At present, about 5 per cent. of sales are by a private person and 95 per cent. are through estate agents and similar bodies. The key point is the means of communication adopted by the private person. Since it is reasonable to expect that most transactions occur on the basis of some form of advertising, and since in practice it is difficult for a person to go round identifying potential buyers, we can expect the existing situation to continue. As both the private seller engaging in a marketing exercise and the estate agent engaging in a marketing exercise will have to have a home information pack, the provisions need not make very much difference to the existing situation—and we do not expect them to.

Matthew Green: Will the Minister give way?

Keith Hill: No; I want to make some progress. I need to deal with further amendments and other issues that have been raised.
 We could spend all day debating what is, and what is not, a section of the public for the purposes of the Bill. It might give the Committee a better idea if I mentioned a few scenarios; that might help to clarify the issue. If a person mentions to his friends that he is thinking of selling his home, with or without the benefit of a few pints in a Ludlow pub, he is not marketing to a section of the public. The same is true if he has the same conversation with work colleagues. However—this is the point made by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet—if he sent an e-mail to everyone in his company, including people he did not know, that could well be marketing to a section of a public, in which case the home information pack obligations would apply. 
 We have to allow a little common sense to prevail on such matters. I am absolutely certain that trading standards officers, who are the enforcers on this issue, will want to behave with common sense and moderation in dealing with the issue, tempted though they might be by some of the imaginings to which we have been treated in the past few minutes. 
 Finally, let me turn to amendment No. 339. It would restrict the home information pack obligations to sellers who market their homes to the public at large. Excluding marketing to a section of the public from the pack obligations would, again, open the door to abuse. Sellers wishing to avoid the pack obligations could do so by ensuring that their marketing activities were in some way restricted. Even so, they could market to a large section of the public, perhaps by advertising in a trade journal—that would be a section of the public, but it could be a large section of the public—a trade union journal, or perhaps even, let us say for the sake of argument, in Liberal Democrat News. I imagine that the readership of that journal is so restricted as to make advertising in it tantamount to a private conversation, but we would nevertheless regard that as marketing to a section of the public. I jest, of course. 
 More seriously, such advertising would extend far beyond the sort of private arrangements to which I have referred, and would result in a large number of sales being conducted without packs. That would have the wholly undesirable effect of bringing about a two-track transactions process in which, in a chain, sales without packs would be made, and would endanger transactions with packs. Preventing that is the purpose of the provisions.

John Hayes: I shall be brief, because I know that the Minister is keen to make progress. Of course, the circumstances that the Minister mentions will occur in a case in which some sales follow the process through an agent—or indeed through individual marketing—which attracts the need for a pack, and other sales are made on an entirely private basis, from one person to another. Would not that have the same impact on the chain?
 My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire has a point; there may be a growth in a kind of informal selling that does not constitute marketing in any sense that would legally oblige people to obtain a pack, and that may have an effect on the market. That is simply an observation for comment, rather than anything stronger.

Keith Hill: No, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right. A private transaction between two chaps in a pub is not part of a chain; it is a one-on-one transaction. It does not invite the provisions of the legislation. In light of my comprehensive and extremely reasonably explanations, I trust that Opposition Members will choose not to press their amendments.

Sydney Chapman: I am extremely grateful to the Minister once again, because he has cleared the mist from parts of this clause. However, I am left with one horrible nightmare. In giving an example downwind of the Minister's patch, when I stand down at the next election I would not fall within the part 5 provisions if I dealt privately with my upstairs neighbour. I wonder, however, if it were possible that I might now fall within those provisions because I have mentioned my case in this Committee.

John Hayes: I simply wanted to say a further word about amendment No. 404. The Minister has defined marketing by giving us a broad indication of those properties and kinds of transactions that will be affected by the Bill's provisions. However, he has opened up other concerns.
 There is marketing of a private nature: an advert in a newsagent or, if one wanted to appeal to a smaller number of people, an advert in Liberal Democrat News. However, the Minister has not been clear about the impact on a chain of an arrangement of the type to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet referred. It is entirely possible that my hon. Friend might be selling his house in south Chelsea on a basis that meant that he was not legally obliged to have a seller's pack, but others involved in the transaction—those at the other end of the chain—might be in need of a seller's pack, and they could be held up because of some personal failing on the part of my hon. Friend, hard though that is to believe. I am not sure that the Minister's objective of an entirely transparent process is assisted by the fact that there will be, in whatever number, such exceptions. There will be houses that do not have seller's packs or home condition reports attached to them, and there will be transactions that are not affected by the legislation. Inevitably, there will be inconsistencies. We may be talking about only 1 or 2 per cent. of transactions, but the effect of that will be bigger because, as the Minister says, buyer and sellers are often in chains. The net effect may be considerably greater than he anticipates. 
 Are we not looking at another illustration, following our long discussion this morning, of why this part of the Bill is ill considered? All kinds of anomalies are beginning to emerge, notwithstanding the smooth veneer that the Minister is attempting to put on these imperfect provisions. Earlier, he was very 
 open-minded in saying that he was thinking of canning several of his ideas about the earlier aspects of the clause, and I wonder whether he is thinking again about marketing. If he is not, he should be. 
 To that end, I am not entirely satisfied with the Minister's views on amendment No. 404, but because he is thoughtful and open-minded, and because there are many other things that we want to press on with this afternoon, I am comfortable about withdrawing my amendment.

Peter Pike: Mr. Hayes, you cannot withdraw your amendment, but I understand that you are saying that you will not be moving it; I would have called it after taking amendment No. 403.

John Hayes: Which is what you said you would do, Mr. Pike, so I am asking you not to call my amendment.

Peter Pike: I have taken note of that.

Matthew Green: The Minister is rather full of himself today, unlike on Tuesday when he read the wrong speech. The difference is that we did not ungraciously point that out. However, he has not held back from commenting on the fact that I have had to come in to take over from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton midway through the clause.
 As the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said, although the Minister's answers have clarified many of the questions, and the reasons why the amendments were tabled, they have opened up some more anomalies. The hon. Gentleman has revealed one of those, but others spring to mind. If a person living on the Scottish borders in England wanted to avoid the cost of a seller's pack, they could go to a Scottish estate agent in Edinburgh, get them to market the property just in Scotland—not in England and Wales—where they would not have to pay for a seller's pack. It is as simple as that. There is an anomaly over the border between Scotland and England. There would be another anomaly if I bumped into my neighbour who said, ''I am thinking of selling my house'' and we did a private deal, because they would not have to produce a seller's pack. If, however, I did not bump into my neighbour by chance, and they went to an estate agent, after which I saw a sign go up, they would have borne the cost of producing a seller's pack even if I negotiated a private deal with them. In those circumstances, by chance and fate they would have incurred several hundred pounds of costs that they would not have incurred if we had happened to bump into each other in the street before my neighbour had gone to the estate agent. 
 I suspect that the deeper we go into part 5, the more anomalies we will find. The longer people look at this part, the more certain they are that it should not be introduced. The Minister may, by the time we reach the end of part 5, convince himself that home information packs should not be included. Even if he is not convinced about that, I am sure that members of the House of Lords will be convinced when they read our Hansard, as many of them do before considering Bills in the other place.

Andrew Selous: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the current provisions will undoubtedly lead to a reduction in the choice and number of properties available to the general house-buying public? There will be more private deals and transactions, so properties will not be generally marketed to the public due to the strong incentive to avoid costs and delay.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman has a good point. I purchased my first house some 18 months ago. We moved about 400 yd down the road from where we were renting. The sign never went up. The estate agent rang us up because they knew that we were looking for a property and it was all agreed quickly. The sale would have been slowed down if there had been a seller's pack. The estate agent was approached and phoned me the next day, when I visited them and agreed the price there and then. The sale went through within a month. The seller's pack would have slowed down my transaction. It will not speed up every transaction.

Keith Hill: This is not a serious political debate.

Matthew Green: The Minister says that, but it has an effect on people. If he thinks that the proposed legislation will not affect some transactions and slow them down—if he wants to say that he believes that every transaction will be quicker as a result of seller's packs—he is wrong. They would have slowed down the transaction that I mentioned.
 The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire has a good point. More people will seek to negotiate private sales to avoid the cost of seller's packs. That will have a distorting effect on the market; it would be difficult for anyone to argue that it will not have that effect. However, we have teased out of the Minister some explanations, which are helpful and clarify some of the points that needed clarification. He has gone further than the explanatory notes, for which I am grateful. I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote, but if the Minister carries on like this he may convince himself that this provision should not be included in the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 403, in
clause 120, page 84, line 20, at end insert— 
 '(3)(a) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe the operational date of all or part of the introduction of Part 5 with regard to the capacity to effectively implement; 
 (b) the Secretary of State may not make any regulations under this section unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a Resolution of each House of Parliament.'. 
 [R] Relevant registered interest declared.
 I hope that we can deal with the amendment with more speed than its predecessors—as I am sure that you do, Mr. Pike—partly because the ground for it is now well known, thanks to our earlier discussions. 
 The amendment essentially suggests that the Secretary of State prescribe the operational date for the introduction of part 5. The reason for that is the widespread concern—no doubt shared by you and by members of the Committee, Mr. Pike—that the 
 necessary expertise, the number of people required to do the job, and the need to produce seller's packs make the Minister's target date of early 2007 questionable at the very least. 
 As the Minister and the Committee know, between 1.3 and 1.4 million house transactions take place every year in the United Kingdom. The Government have estimated that we will require 7,000 inspectors to carry out the surveys necessary as part of the home information pack. Others have said 8,000, but let us settle on the Government's estimate. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors estimates that, of its 4,500 residential surveyors, there are about 2,000 with the relevant qualifications who have already expressed an interest in being involved in the business. That leaves a shortfall of at least 5,000 inspectors. The need to train those people, and the level of desire among people to become skilled in the relevant way, makes it at least questionable that the Minister will be able to introduce the measure in 2007, even if the House accepts it in its current form. 
 In truth—I think that the Minister knows this—there is some doubt about whether, in practical terms, the job can be done in the time scale given. I know that the Government have considered phasing in the implementation for precisely that kind of reason. Others too have suggested that part of the pack could be launched—the part that deals with the searches, which is arguably the more straightforward element of it—as a first initiative, to be followed later by the full pack, which would include the home condition report. 
 We know that there is uncertainty and doubt about not just the principle of the pack, but the practical business of implementing the measures. The Minister knows that, too. Should the Committee and the House, in a desire to be as helpful as possible to the Minister and the Government, be so unwise as to pass this part of the Bill? It is essential that the amendment be made. Let me remind the Committee of what it says: 
''The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe the operational date of all or part of the introduction of Part 5 with regard to the capacity to effectively implement''.
 The ''capacity to effectively implement'' would be the make-or-break of the provisions. The amendment goes on: 
''the Secretary of State may not make any regulations under this section unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a Resolution of each House of Parliament.''
 That reason for that part of the amendment is that by 2007 circumstances may well have changed. The idea that we should now pass enabling legislation that would facilitate the provision of far-reaching measures that might not come into effect until 2007, 2008 or even 2009 without further reference to Parliament is unacceptable. We are asking for a recourse for Parliament, so that we can look at the matter again if the delay that I think might occur becomes a reality. 
 This is a simple amendment that gives the Secretary of State the necessary flexibility, should my worst fears about the availability of experts to do the job be realised. In truth, I do not know whether those fears will be realised; it may be that the Minister's confidence is well founded, and that people will rush 
 forward to become inspectors in numbers that one can scarcely imagine; however, it may not be so. At the very least, the amendment would be a safety valve. It is a desire to be helpful by providing a get-out clause for the Minister. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will deal with it seriously before he accepts it with relish.

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman has described the purposes of the amendment admirably. He has asked whether we will attain our target date. He is entitled to ask that question, but it is unclear to me why we would benefit from setting a date for the measure to be implemented under regulation. He may want to come back to me on that issue in due course.
 The Committee has, and will continue to have, the opportunity to discuss the principle whether there should be a home information pack and so will the other place. If Parliament agrees to the proposals, which I sincerely hope that it will, there is little need for a full debate in both Houses about the detail of regulations that will give effect to the decision. I understand why the hon. Gentleman is calling for such a debate. When we were in opposition, I tabled plenty of amendments calling for the affirmative resolution procedure. If Parliament had accepted such amendments, we would be doing nothing but discussing affirmative resolutions, so such a proposition is not always practical, nor is it necessary in this case. 
 I assure the Committee, as I have before, that we have no intention whatever of introducing the home information pack requirement until we are satisfied that all the pieces of the jigsaw fit together. We will not introduce the home condition report until we are satisfied that adequate numbers of appropriately qualified and insured home inspectors are available. Since the hon. Gentleman referred particularly to that, I shall say a word about it in due course.

Chris Mole: Given the potential number of individuals who may be qualified to carry out inspection functions, has the Minister considered encouraging local authority environmental health officers, who may have the appropriate qualifications to operate under new training powers that the Government have given them, to make a contribution towards the pool of individuals who could carry out such functions?

Keith Hill: My hon. Friend's suggestion is reasonable, especially about the pooling of expertise in the training processes. However, if we consider the earlier provisions under the Bill on the health and safety rating system and its implications, environmental health officers will have big new challenges on their hands in the foreseeable future. We shall seriously consider my hon. Friend's proposal.
 When we reach the great day of the home information pack, we want to ensure that there is the capacity in the industry to implement part 5 of the Bill. We will therefore continue to consult widely with the bodies that will be affected as we develop regulations and prepare for implementation of home information 
 packs. The Committee will recall that, on Second Reading, I said about the pack: 
''We are continuing to work closely with industry and consumer stakeholders on the detailed components''—[Official Report, 12 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 542.]
 Many members of the home buying and selling advisory group have helped to steer our research and to prepare for the implementation of home information packs. For the record, this will be helpful to the Committee. 
 I should like to allude to the organisations represented on the advisory group. They include the Consumers Association, the Law Society, the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the National Association of Estate Agents, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Council for Licensed Conveyancers, the Local Government Association, HM Land Registry, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the National Assembly for Wales. The entire home buying and selling industry—the community—is represented in our advisory group. 
 I should like to say a word about whether a sufficient number of home inspectors will be found for training—an issue raised by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. I will also speak, very briefly, about indemnity insurance, which is absolutely fundamental if they are to discharge their duties properly. 
 I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that these points are being addressed and resolved with full industry involvement. We estimate that approximately 7,500 home inspectors will be needed to prepare home condition reports, assuming that one-third will work full-time and the remainder up to half-time. Independent research has been carried out by the former Property Services National Training Organisation, now the Sector Skills Council for Property, Housing, Cleaning and Facilities Management. That research has been made available to the Committee. It shows a potential labour force of between 10,000 and 18,000 people with relevant knowledge, understanding and experience who would become home inspectors. 
 Discussions with a limited number of interested professional bodies, such as the RICS, the Institute of Maintenance and Building Management, the Association of Building Engineers and the Chartered Institute of Building indicate that 90 per cent. of the numbers required have already been identified within those bodies. The required skills and knowledge have already been established in the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority-approved national occupational standards for home inspectors. Universities and colleges are already preparing courses for home inspectors. They include: the College of Estate Management, London South Bank university, the university of Central England, and the Liverpool John Moores university. Other establishments are also planning courses, although not as advanced. Research has confirmed that it is practical at reasonable cost to establish an 
 independent, self-insured, self-managed indemnity insurance scheme for home inspectors to overcome current gaps in the insurance market.

John Hayes: I should like to raise two points about the research that the right hon. Gentleman mentions. Has research suggested that there will be any kind of geographical concentration of inspectors? It seems likely that there will be a shortage of inspectors in the peripheral regions of the United Kingdom—rural districts, and so on.
 I am concerned about the impact of surveys that currently take place—and may continue to do so—on the time that can be devoted to the production of home condition reports. The Minister will have made a notional estimate of how many additional surveys he expects to take place once the Bill's provisions are in place. The Minister is grimacing; let me explain. 
 If someone receives a home condition report that looks slightly suspect, it will provide a baseline of information. It may well be that people who can afford to commission a further survey—I certainly would, and I am sure the Minister would, too—will create a demand within the industry. Currently, approximately 20 per cent. of buyers commission private surveys. Does the right hon. Gentleman expect that number to fall to, say, 5 per cent., 1 per cent. or 18 per cent., or might the home condition report stimulate such additional interest that the number of surveys will increase? People who do not have any sort of survey now may acquire a taste for having more information about a house before they buy one. That will have a big impact on the number of inspectors available to do the proposed work. Knowing how diligent the Minister is, he will have those figures to hand, will have made the notional estimate, and he will bring the research to the Committee so that we can make a judgment about it.

Keith Hill: I have to say ''tut, tut'' in response the hon. Gentleman's question about the geographical spread of people who are available to act as home inspectors. I have circulated copies of the PSNTO research. If he was a diligent Committee member—as I am sure most other hon. Members are—he would have read it and learned that there is no problem with the geographical spread.

John Hayes: Will the Minister give way?

Keith Hill: No, because we need to speed on. The hon. Gentleman must understand that that was a tease and that he need not defend himself on this occasion. However, I assure him that there is no problem in that regard.
 On how many extra surveys will be carried out, for the first time—but by no means the last—in our proceedings I introduce the name of the saintly Maria Coleman, an independent and independent-minded estate agent from Bristol who gave superb and persuasive evidence to the inquiry conducted the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions. Our Standing Committee is graced by the presence of two distinguished members of that Select Committee. I do not have to hand the figure supplied by Maria Coleman in answer to a question about the 
 proportion of her clients who, when in receipt of a home condition report, had chosen to go on to have their own survey. I think that I am right in summarising her answer to that as ''a minuscule number'', but I will endeavour to give the actual statistic to the Committee. 
 Research and soundings from the industry show that we will be able to have all the elements of the certification scheme, including the required number of home inspectors, in place to enable implementation in 2007. That will also allow for a run-in period ahead of implementation of about six months, when the key elements of the scheme will be in place to facilitate voluntary industry initiatives before they become compulsory. A powerful wind is blowing in favour of this proposal. The industry is now heavily engaged. We are working together to iron out the remaining problems, but I am convinced that, with the support of Parliament, the scheme will succeed and we will be able to implement it on the target date. 
 I hope that I have given ample reassurance to the hon. Gentleman that a commencement order is sufficient to introduce the operational date of the home information pack duties.

John Hayes: The Minister has, as ever, been helpful but I do not think that he has done himself any favours. The amendment would enable him to phase implementation if that becomes necessary because of changes the anticipated availability of inspectors. It also suggests that the House might give further scrutiny to any changes of that sort, and it includes in the Bill a provision on
''regard to the capacity to effectively implement.''
 They are all good things. 
 When we have more time, I will talk about my close study of the document that the Minister circulated, so that I can pay him back for his spiteful little tease, which I think was unbecoming. I have decided to press the amendment to a Division. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 11.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming— 
 The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on 
 the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill:— 
 The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 120 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Sydney Chapman: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. Be it known that had my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) and the two Liberal Democrat colleagues of the hon. Member for Ludlow been here, there might have been a different result.

Peter Pike: And if other people had been present, too, there might have been quite a different figure. However, I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making.

Chris Ruane: Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike, had we all been here, there definitely would have been.

Peter Pike: Fortunately, I do not have to respond to that.Clause 121 Meaning of ''on the market'' and related expressions

Clause 121 - Meaning of ''on the market'' and related expressions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Sydney Chapman: I shall be brief. I mean that sincerely.
 Mr. Pike, your predecessor in the Chair suggested that we could raise matters generally on these clauses because there could not be a debate on part 5 stand part. The progenitor of the Bill was a Government Green Paper in 2000 and a draft Bill produced in March 2003, which was scrutinised—if that is the right phrase—by the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions. However, the Select Committee would have considered various issues arising from the Bill and its provisions, not its phraseology or wording. I am a Select Committee member and know how they work. 
 This is another classic example of a Bill that should have gone to a special legislative Committee before it came to this one. Such a Committee would have pointed out various omissions, which we have raised. The integrity of the Minister is beyond doubt, but I feel that we are examining—

Peter Pike: Order. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but he must try to make it refer to clause 121.

Sydney Chapman: On clauses 121 and 122, I feel—

Peter Pike: We are not taking clause 122 yet.

Sydney Chapman: I shall not give up on clause 122, Mr. Pike. However, confining my remarks to clause 121, the wording could have been better and it could have been less ambiguous.
 I want to be constructive rather than negative. Therefore, I say to the Minister that even on Report he would be able to introduce amendments that would add something to the clause. They could deal with the avoidance of doubt—a phrase that has been used. He could refer to various situations or some of the instances that have been mentioned. He has helped the Committee by saying that the south Chelsea case that I mentioned would not come within the provisions of the clause. I leave that as a constructive suggestion to the Minister. 
 Whether or not the Bill and this part of it are enacted, we are obliged to ensure that it is as comprehensible and as easily understood by our constituents as possible. Therefore I ask the right hon. Gentleman most sincerely to consider making additions that make clearer the situations in which this clause operates and those in which it does not.

David Kidney: If the Minister responds to this clause stand part debate, will he confirm my understanding of one particular point about part 5? Under clause 121, a residential property that is on the market must have a home information pack. On Second Reading there was some confusion about whether that applied to a council property that was going to be sold to the tenant under right to buy. In the debate on 12 January, at column 560, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings—correctly, I believe—put it to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton that it did not apply to a council. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said that he thought that that was wrong, that it did apply and that it will be a new great burden on councils. My understanding is that that view is wrong, because the council property will never be on the market. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that point. Briefings given by the Local Government Association at the time did not make it clear, although I understand that local government is encouraged to give more information to tenants along the lines of what will be contained in the home information pack.

Keith Hill: Let me respond to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) as to whether these provisions will apply to a right-to-buy purchase. They answer is no, they would not apply to a right-to-buy transaction. Such a property is not marketed in the sense defined—however inadequately—in the Bill. It is not part of a chain, and we have emphasised all the time that the central thrust of our scheme is to provide up-front certainty, which should facilitate home purchase in the context of chains.
 I must say to my hon. Friend that we have thought quite seriously about whether the provisions should be made to apply in those cases. There are issues of 
 principle to which I have alluded that dissuaded us from so doing. In addition, as part of the impact assessment, we had to take into account what the implications would be in terms of the burdens for local authorities. We believe that they would be great. 
 On provision of information, as I understand it, local authorities are obliged when responding to inquiries about right to buy to supply information about service charges. I only wish that many of my constituents who have chosen to go down this route had looked at that a little more carefully, because it often seems to come as a shock to them. Local authorities are also required to supply information about the structural aspects of the building, especially if it is a block. Again, I do wish that those who engaged in this process thought hard about what they are taking on in terms of the larger costs that might emerge. 
 When thinking about the implications for local authorities in terms of burdens imposed, it is worth remembering that only about 50 per cent. of inquiries about right to buy go through. In other words, there would be a huge wasted investment on the part of local authorities in preparing home condition reports. 
 Leaving aside the structural aspects, which one does not necessarily expect people who take up the right to buy to know, the people living in a property will know more intimately than any potential buyer the exact issues that relate to the property. In that respect, such people are in a distinctive position.

Robert Syms: Will the Minister give way?

Keith Hill: I do not want to protract this speech, as I need to answer the questions asked by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, but I shall give way briefly.

Robert Syms: I understand the Minister's rationale that local authorities will not be subject to the regime, but what about defence estates that could be marketing ex-Ministry of Defence houses? Recently in Dorset several such homes were available in the local community. Would the Ministry of Defence have to produce home information packs with the accompanying details, or is it exempt as a Crown organisation?

Keith Hill: I have no reason at this stage to believe that the MOD would be exempt. Since it will be engaged in a marketing exercise under the terms of the Bill, I would expect such a body to be caught by the provisions. Before I accept further interventions, I owe it to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet to respond to his points.
 I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns, which are not necessarily about the language of this part of the Bill, which I personally find easy to deal with. He is concerned about implications and the body of regulation that will support the proposals. The Government's purposes have been unusually well adumbrated prior to the Bill coming before Committee. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Green Paper, which was the subject of consultation, and to the publication of a draft Bill, which was the subject of Select Committee scrutiny—I agree that that 
 was not line-by-line scrutiny, but the Committee considered the purposes of the Bill. Also, much of this part of the Bill draws on the Homes Bill, which came before Parliament in 2001 and went to Standing Committee, where it was scrutinised in detail at that stage. I would argue that the Bill, in its generality and its specificities, has been the subject of more scrutiny than most. It has certainly benefited from that scrutiny.

Brian Iddon: Will my right hon. Friend make the position clear regarding the sale of properties that have, for example, been recovered by a housing association, and properties—single houses or a block of houses—that are being sold by an agency such as the Coal Authority through auction rooms?

Keith Hill: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that such sales would be caught by the provisions of the Bill.

John Hayes: My intervention is not unlike that of the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). Other types of sale are one-to-one transactions. I understand the Minister's argument that a council house sale is particular because the tenant is the buyer and there is no marketing involved. However, that might be true of the sale of a tied cottage, for example: there would be no marketing involved; the estate would be selling a home already occupied by the purchaser; and the purchaser would know a lot about the house. That was the argument that the Minister used in the case of a council tenant. I would like to understand why such a buyer would not be subject to the same kind of immunity from the provisions that a council tenant would—or perhaps they would be. Would anyone who is sold a house in which they already live be free from the provisions in the way that the Minister said a council tenant would be?

Keith Hill: Yes, if it is a private transaction and the property is not marketed, it would not be caught by the provisions of the Bill.
 I promised to try to answer the question asked by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings about second surveys. On the basis of evidence from the saintly Maria Coleman of Bristol—although she did not provide this piece of evidence to the Select Committee—the answer to the question of how many buyers choose to get their own survey rather than rely on the one provided by her company is, in her experience, very few. In her now extremely extensive experience of more than 700 cases, potential buyers are shown the home condition report and are told that if they buy the property, they will have a legal right to rely on it. Most are happy to do so; less than 5 per cent. choose to take out a second survey on the properties. 
 Our expectation is that once the system beds down and the certificated status of the home condition inspectors is widely recognised and accepted, even fewer would-be buyers will choose to take out a second survey, but we will have to wait and see.

John Hayes: A couple of points arise from what the Minister has said. I am grateful to him for providing clarity about people engaged in transactions that do
 not involve wider marketing—whether they be council tenants, tenants of another public body or authority, or even tenants of a private owner—not being affected by the Bill. The Minister has been quite clear about that. and that will cover a large number of sales. However, I am a little confused about his response to my remarks on second surveys for two reasons. First, he said that he came to his judgment after drawing on the experience of the Bristol study, on which he has—not unreasonably—based a good deal of his analysis. However, he said that the people with whom Mrs. Coleman—or is it Miss?

Keith Hill: Mrs., I think.

John Hayes: Thank you. The Minister said that the people with whom Mrs. Coleman had been dealing had been told that they were receiving the packs—which, incidentally, they received free—and that they could rely on them legally. We were told earlier that that was not the case, and that if people had a warranty, their first recourse in law would be to their warranty. It may be that anyone who was selling a house covered by warranty within 10 years and who thought that they could rely on their packs legally could not do so, because they were covered by the warranty. Knowing that might have had an impact on their judgment about the pack, and it contradicts what we heard earlier. Perhaps the Minister can clarify.
 I would like the Minister to comment on people purchasing houses in areas where there is a known problem, such as subsidence. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East mentioned problems of complex ownership and chemical pollution. There might be problems relating to the terrain, topography, or local circumstances, where a second survey would be more likely. That would also be true in older homes. It is certainly true that, if a person's house were in an area with no known problems, were of a relatively robust construction and were not an older home, they would perhaps rely on the pack. However, if someone were purchasing an older house or a house in an area where there had been the kinds of problems to which I alluded, it is likely that they might seek further guidance, expertise or advice, if the first pack highlighted a concern or problem. If it did not highlight a concern or problem, it would not be worth its salt, would not be doing its job, and the inspector would not be acting properly. 
 I want a little more detail from the Minister. How do the 700 homes break down? Were they principally in one area? If they were, some of the points I raised would not have been covered. What assessment has he made of the types of houses? Older properties would almost be bound to encourage some purchasers to investigate further if the information in the home condition report highlighted potential difficulties. People outside this place with concerns about these provisions are beginning to journey towards those kinds of areas. Although I am not terribly sympathetic to part 5 as a whole, we have a duty to ensure that, before it is made law, those matters are considered and those inquiries are answered.

Keith Hill: On potential subsidence or flooding, it is important to bear it in mind that the home condition report is about the condition of the home. It is an informational and descriptive report that is likely to highlight potential risks. If there is evidence in the property and in property adjoining the home—for example, in the garden—of potential risks, I think that those would appear in the report. To emphasise that more precisely, if a culvert were observed in the garden, some questions about flooding implications might be raised in the mind of the home inspector. I suppose one would expect that—and we would expect that to appear in the home condition report.
 It is through local authority searches and water and drainage searches, which form part of what has to be undertaken in any circumstance as part of home acquisition, that those wider issues would be identified. The advantage of the home information pack is that all that information is provided up front, rather than discovered over the weeks and possibly months of searches. It is clear, for all the reasons that I have adduced, that there are great advantages in that up-front certainty for the consumer.

Sally Keeble: I was going to bring up this point later but we might not reach it at all. My right hon. Friend mentioned flooding. Will consideration be given to including information about whether the property is on a flood plain, which is critical when it comes to insurance?

Peter Pike: Order. Before I call the Minister, I remind the Committee that clause 121 is about the meaning of ''on the market'' and related expressions.

Keith Hill: We do not expect issues such as the location of the property in a flood plain to be thrown up as part of the home condition report. However, that is exactly what we would expect the local authority searches to highlight. As my hon. Friend knows, that is part and parcel of the usual home buying process.
 I wish to refer briefly to the other point made by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings about warranties. They offer a legal redress for brand- new properties. Home condition reports relate to sales of properties other than brand-new properties. If there were a defect in the home condition report, it would be open to the buyer who relied on the report to seek legal redress. That is why it is important for indemnity insurance arrangements to be in place. It is as simple as that.

John Hayes: Which is why I asked about indemnity insurance earlier. I want to be absolutely clear about the matter. The Minister said that warranties apply to brand-new properties. The warranties last for 10 years. He said earlier that on a second sale—people frequently sell their houses after one, two or five years—people will be obliged to have a pack. In those circumstances, are those people to depend on their warranty as their first legal recourse—as he said specifically this morning—or are they to depend on the pack? If it is the warranty, as I suspect it will be, the argument that was made in respect of people who had the free packs in Bristol was a little bogus. He said that they had the packs and that they could rely on
 them legally. It is no wonder they did not seek a separate survey.

Peter Pike: Before I call Mr. Hill, I wish to make it absolutely clear that we are debating clause 121 stand part, which is narrow. We are not debating part 5 of the Bill as a whole. It is my responsibility to keep members of the Committee fairly tightly to the clause.

Keith Hill: We are going over old ground. I apologise if I have not made myself clear but the answer is yes, people can rely on the warranty in the case of a new home in the 10-year period for which the warranty exists. We are dealing with the generality of home purchases. It is in that area that home condition reports will apply—they will apply to the older properties to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. The reality is that most property transactions relate to older properties. There is no contradiction about the Bristol experience. In that case, the admirable Mrs. Coleman carried out home condition reports, which she offered as a service to would-be buyers, who on the whole found it to be extremely satisfactory. As a consequence, staggeringly few of her transactions have fallen though.
 Of the 30 per cent. of home purchases that fall through, from 43 per cent. to possibly 71 per cent. do so as a result of flaws detected in the condition of the home that were thrown up by the surveys or other issues arising from the legal searches. That is a compelling reason to go ahead with the up-front home information pack proposal under the Bill. As for Maria Coleman's clients in Bristol, instead of about 30 per cent. of the transactions falling through, if memory serves, that figure was reduced to 2 or 3 per cent.—possibly 4 per cent., but not more. On the basis of her practical experience, that seems to be rather a compelling argument for proceeding with these proposals. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 121 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 122 - Acting as estate agent

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill

Matthew Green: I will definitely confine my remarks to clause 122 and estate agents—this clause is about people acting as estate agents.
 I have a number of questions for the Minister. The first concerns the timing of the Bill. I understand that the Office of Fair Trading is carrying out an investigation into estate agents and that its report is imminent. It could have a material effect on the way the Bill is implemented if, for instance, the OFT recommends that estate agents be registered or licensed in some form; currently they are not. If there are OFT recommendations, will the Government not have lost an opportunity to implement them—this would be a suitable vehicle for doing so? I am sure that the Minister has considered that and that he will have a slick answer. 
 The second question concerns the absence of licensing of estate agents. Not all estate agents carry professional indemnity cover. I realise that home condition reports will not necessarily be made by estate agents, but the pack as a whole will be put together by estate agents. The way the Bill is drafted means that one does not have to call oneself an estate agent to be an estate agent. Therefore, there will be people acting as agents who have no professional indemnity. Since they will be responsible for putting the pack together, I am concerned about the legal position of somebody seeking legal redress where the people who put it together have no indemnity cover. Does that then fall back on to the seller, who may in all good faith have approached somebody to market their house, having not been aware that they did not have the indemnity cover? 
 The other point that the proposal raises is whether estate agents will love issuing disclaimers. Will they be allowed to issue disclaimers on these packs? Without estate agents being licensed, I am concerned that the way estate agents assemble the packs may vary in quality. Some of them will assume the responsibility well. I am sure that the lady from Bristol who was mentioned is exactly the sort of person who would do that dutifully and well. She has clearly shown that in what she has done so far. However, there may be people who have a much more fly-by-night attitude towards the way they assemble the pack, and who have gone out of business by the time the purchaser of the house realises that there is a problem with the pack. I am seeking a bit of clarification from the Minister on the role of estate agents and on how the proposal might link with any recommendations in the OFT report.

Keith Hill: I often have occasion to talk about our proceedings, and I now feel that over the years I have been on far too many of these Committees. I understand the cries of, ''No, no.'' from the Opposition—[Hon. Members: ''No, no.''] At the end of a long afternoon, as we reach the dying embers of our Committee stage, one sometimes begins to wonder whether it is all worth while—but it is, of course. We are offering the consumer a wonderful opportunity with our home information pack proposals.
 By inviting me to take into account the OFT inquiry into estate agencies, the hon. Member for Ludlow is engaging in a marvellous example of what-iffery. He says that its findings, which have not been published, could have a material effect on the Bill. That is sheer speculation. He is accusing the Government of missing the opportunity to implement a non-existent proposal. We have a Bill with a clear purpose. What may or may not emerge from the OFT inquiry is not germane to a Bill that is clearly timetabled, to which the Government have been committed for a long time and which has been through an extraordinarily comprehensive scrutiny process. 
 The hon. Gentleman asked about disclaimers in HIPs. The providers of the individual components of the pack will be liable for their accuracy; for example, the local authority will be responsible for searches. He 
 asked what happens in the event of an estate agent not carrying insurance—not having a professional indemnity. The answer to that has to be our old friend caveat emptor—let the buyer beware. That principle still applies. It is important to remember that the HIP is about marketing, not about conveyancing. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 122 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 123 - Responsibility for marketing: general

Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 341, in
clause 123, page 85, line 18, leave out 'seller or a'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 390, in
clause 123, page 85, line 21, at end insert— 
 '(5) The meaning of ''seller'' in this section shall be prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State.'.

Matthew Green: The amendments are about the definition of ''seller''. Amendment No. 341 would remove responsibility for the packs from the seller. The Minister will not agree to that because he supports the concept of packs—he says that they are wonderful and everyone wants them. However, we have heard that 5 per cent. of the market is accounted for by individuals selling their own properties themselves. Those sales are not necessarily private transactions, as sometimes the property is marketed—over the internet, for example. One of the reasons why people do that is that the cost to them of selling is lower if they sell privately, so it is a cheap exercise. However, the Minister's measure will impose a significant cost on people who have chosen to take that route to avoid cost, and it will add considerable bureaucracy to a situation that is currently relatively free of it.
 I realise that the Minister will not agree to the amendment, which addresses a fundamental point of principle, but that is its purpose. It is for him to justify his position. He might win the vote in this Committee, but when the Bill moves to another place things might be slightly more difficult. Unless he assumes that any reform of the other place will result in a natural Labour majority—

Chris Ruane: Instead of a natural Conservative one.

Matthew Green: If the hon. Gentleman studies the maths of the other place, I think that he will find that it does not even have a natural Conservative majority. However, we are not talking about the House of Lords.

Peter Pike: No, we are definitely not.

Matthew Green: The second amendment, No. 390, is an attempt to further define who the seller is. The Minister may think that he has already covered most of this ground, but I have a few more questions for him about who is the seller in certain sets of circumstances. Who is the seller when a receiver is marketing a property on behalf of the mortgager? Who is the seller when an administrator or liquidator
 is marketing a property on behalf of a company in administration or liquidation? Who is the seller when a receiver, acting under the Mental Health Act 1983, is marketing a property on behalf of the owner because of the owner's mental incapacity—who has the seller's responsibility in that case? Presumably, in such cases, the Minister wants responsibility to lie with the receiver under the 1983 Act, because the incapacitated person is clearly not in a position to be responsible. However, if a receiver, administrator or liquidator is to market a property himself, is he the equivalent of the estate agent, as outlined in clause 122?
 I hope that the Minister realises that I do not raise these issues as trivial questions. Although the second amendment, unlike the first, does not address a matter of great principle, he needs to clarify whether he is making receivers, administrators and liquidators responsible for producing the packs. Mine is a straightforward request for clarification, and the amendment is a vehicle for securing the answers.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman asked some good questions about defining the seller in particular cases, and it will be interesting to hear the Minister's response to those questions, be it this afternoon or at a later juncture. However, I cannot support the amendments.
 If made, amendment No. 341—like earlier Liberal amendments—would mean that it would be impossible for someone to sell privately, because under the provisions left on the face of the Bill only an estate agent could market the property. I am sure that is not the hon. Gentleman's intention. Removing the words ''seller or a'' leaves only the estate agent, which would rule out the possibility of a private individual engaging in the kind of marketing that we discussed—down his proverbial pub or in my more convivial newsagents. The Council of Mortgage Lenders, to which I have referred more than once today, points out that the subsection as it stands means that, for the purposes of the Bill, it is immaterial whether an individual describes himself as an estate agent for the purposes of selling. 
 Another effect of the amendment would be that if someone engaged another individual to sell their property—perhaps an elderly person, or someone who felt that they did not have the wherewithal to market their own house—they would be prevented from selling the property. I know that the hon. Gentleman did not draw up the amendment—if he had, perhaps it would have been more tightly drawn.

Matthew Green: In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton is grateful to the Law Society for the amendment.

John Hayes: I hope that the hon. Gentleman did not pay by the minute—in my experience of lawyers, one usually does. It is not the fault of the hon. Member for Ludlow, who nobly and loyally comes to the defence of his colleagues, but the amendments are flawed as I have described. To that extent, although I will be interested in the Minister's response, I cannot bring myself to support the amendments, much though I
 share some of hon. Gentleman's reservations about this part of the Bill.

Keith Hill: Clause 123 sets out who is to be regarded as responsible for marketing a residential property that is being, or has been, put on the market in England or Wales, and therefore who is responsible for the home information pack. The Bill provides that the duties and the penalties for breaching the duties will apply only to the person who is responsible for marketing the property. Only two categories of person can be held responsible: the seller or someone who is acting as the seller's estate agent. Both can be held responsible if, for example, the seller is engaged in marketing his own home as well as using the services of an estate agent. The duties that apply to sellers marketing their own homes and estate agents marketing on their behalf are different and are described in clauses 124 and 125.
 Before dealing with the effect of the amendments, I shall respond to the cases raised by the hon. Member for Ludlow. In all normal circumstances, the bodies in the examples that he gave would use the services of an agent, normally an estate agent, for marketing. That person would clearly be responsible under the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has—not for the first time—identified one or two particularly arcane instances in which there might be a question mark over the precise intentions and purposes of the Bill. It must be very rare for a receiver or administrator to carry out marketing without the services of an agent, but we need to think about the implications of that and we will return to the specific question. It may be one case in 1,000, 100,000 or even 1 million that is affected, but the hon. Gentleman has asked a legitimate question and I will attempt to answer it in due course. I am enormously grateful to him for raising the issue. 
 Amendment No. 341 would provide that a seller marketing his own home would not be a ''responsible person'' within the meaning of the Bill. That would mean that the home information pack duties and the associated penalties applied only to estate agents. As we have discovered, the vast majority of sellers use the services of an estate agent. We thought long and hard when developing our proposals about whether it was right to bring private sellers within their scope, given the associated risk of incurring a penalty. In England and Wales, consumer protection law is usually directed at businesses, as the Committee will be aware. For example, the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 applies only to estate agents' and property developers' descriptions of property, not to what an individual seller may claim. 
 Nevertheless, there are good reasons not to exclude private sellers from the legal duty to have a home information pack. If they were excluded, individual sellers might calculate that the potential saving in up-front costs would make a private sale a worthwhile venture, particularly if they were getting a free pack—a free ride—on an associated purchase. That apparent saving might make marketing one's own home a far more attractive proposition than it is now, but it could lead to two serious problems. 
 First, the proposal to exclude the individual seller risks creating a two-track system in which some sales are made with packs and some without. That would make home buying and selling more complicated and act against the best interests of buyers and sellers in general. We must remember that the purpose of the provisions is to protect the consumer. We have no doubt that there are clear benefits to the seller under the proposal, but our first objective is to protect the home buyer. 
 The second problem is that sales without a home information pack would be significantly slower. In a chain, the delay would slow down the other transactions and cancel out the benefits of the reformed system. We must not forget that the additional costs can usually be balanced. We have heard many misplaced claims about the cost of the process, but we have calculated costs of buying and selling and moving home in respect of a three-bedroomed, semi-detached house in a provincial town: the home condition report would cost about £363, including VAT, and the total costs for a seller in those circumstances would be £4,673. The costs would be equalised because the seller is usually also a buyer and will as a buyer benefit from not having to engage in expenditure on a survey. Furthermore, we must not forget the costs of the present failure rate in the home buying and selling process: it is not cheap for those 30 per cent. of would-be home buyers whose transactions fall through. We reckon that it costs, on average, £1,000 per failed transaction, or £350 million a year.

John Hayes: Will the Minister give way?

Keith Hill: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I wish to pursue my thoughts. Our contention is that making such information available up front helps sellers to decide on a realistic asking price—a further benefit conferred by our arrangements. The home information pack reduces the risk that the buyer will want to renegotiate the terms in the light of information, such as information on the condition, disclosed after terms have been agreed; that is also a benefit to the seller. It brings earlier certainty by shortening the period between acceptance of offer and exchange of contracts.
 Our system offers extremely important benefits to sellers and equal, if not greater, benefits for buyers. When a property is marketed to the public, the information should be available regardless of whether an estate agent or the seller is marketing the property. I understand the concern that ordinary citizens might unwittingly become caught up in sanctions procedures, but the change from criminal to civil sanctions has removed much of the risk. I was able to offer such an assurance on Second Reading to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, who expressed some satisfaction. That important change was of considerable importance to hon. Members when we brought forward our proposals formally under the Homes Bill. 
 The best interests of consumers—responsible home sellers and buyers—would not be well served by the amendments. Indeed, they would be seriously 
 damaged. The adoption of amendment No. 390 would create a situation in which the seller as defined under the regulations would presumably include only a smaller section of the market. The current definition of a seller under clause 144 is 
''a person contemplating disposing of''
 interests listed as 
''the freehold interest . . . the interest under a long lease . . . an option to acquire the freehold interest or the interest under a long lease''.
 In other words, the Bill already provides a wide definition of the term ''seller'' and any change in that definition would presumably be aimed at restricting it. 
 The definition in the Bill ensures that most categories of residential property sale are brought within the scope of part 5. If a more narrow definition were laid down in regulations, problems would arise. One of the effects of excluding certain categories of seller would be a two-speed system: that would be most evident in a chain in which some transactions had packs and some did not. That would cause confusion and disputes and completely undermine the purpose of the reforms. For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Member for Ludlow will choose to withdraw what he described as a probing amendment.

John Hayes: The Minister, like a man clinging to the wreckage of his ship as it slowly descends into the briny, is clinging to the point that many transactions break down. However, even by his own estimate, only about 50 per cent. of the transactions that break down—I think he said that the figure ranged between 43 per cent. and 70 per cent.—do so because of something highlighted in a survey or a search. The rest break down because someone has changed their mind, or there is a complicating factor, or the chain has broken down. In those circumstances, sellers who have spent money on one of these packs may well find that—through no fault of their own but because the packs have a limited shelf life—they have wasted their money. The process will come to an end, and they will have to shell out a second time before they remarket their house.
 The Minister must not use that breakdown of the market as a final defence of an increasingly dodgy-looking policy. Many people will find that their sale falls through, not because of any reason that the Minister has given, and through no fault of their own, and they will have to bear the additional cost of packs. However, although I am sympathetic to some of the arguments made by the hon. Member for Ludlow about the principle, I cannot support his amendments because of the detail of the drafting by his advisers, not himself.

Matthew Green: I have been reading about the effects of the provision, and in this case I would back the Law Society over the Council of Mortgage Lenders. The Minister's response was based on how I believe the amendment would work, which is that it would remove private sellers from the scope of the part. We are talking about the legal responsibility for something, not who actually does it, and the fact that
 the Minister responded to me in the way that he did I take as a sign that his advisers read the provision in the same way as the Law Society. Given that the Government's advisers and the Law Society probably outnumber the CML, I shall go with the big battalions.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is selling us something of a dummy. Given that he has made such a play of the amendment, hon. Members should be worried about the fact that it would leave the Bill stating:
''Only the . . . person acting as estate agent for the seller may be responsible for marketing the property.''
 If an estate agent has to be responsible, is the hon. Gentleman really saying that a private transaction could be affected? An estate agent would inevitably be involved if only the estate agent could be responsible; better, I think, to concede the point, accept that on this occasion his advisers were wrong and, in a spirit of happy co-operation, realise that he should withdraw his amendment.

Matthew Green: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is reading the amendment in the context of just one line of the clause. The silent ones, as the Minister has referred to them, have given a few nods. I am confident that my interpretation of the clause is accurate and that the hon. Gentleman's is wrong, so I shall not concede his false premise.
 We should be dealing with the significant issues relating to the amendment. The Minister's response suggests that we are not going to agree on whether private owners should be forced to accept this bureaucracy. I cannot win the argument given the numbers in the Committee, but perhaps it can be won elsewhere. We will perhaps have to let the matter rest for a few more months before dealing with it more effectively. 
 On the second point, the Minister did me a slight disservice by assuming that the amendment was unhelpful and that allowing the Secretary of State to define ''sellers'' was intended purely to restrict. I would love to restrict that but the amendment could be used either way. He may welcome such an amendment when, as he has gracefully said, he examines some of my admittedly rather arcane examples. 
 I thought that one of the purposes of Committees is to find flaws and loopholes in legislation, so I will not apologise for doing my job properly. I am surprised that the Minister interpreted the amendment in that way. It could have been used in both directions; it could have been used to close any loopholes. I was taken aback by the Minister's attitude. He is obviously assuming the worst of everybody today, which is not the normal spirit in which he approaches Committees. Perhaps he got out of the wrong side of bed this morning. I realise that I will not win the argument, particularly as the Conservative spokesman cannot interpret the amendment correctly. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 123 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 124 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 125 - Responsibility of the seller

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Matthew Green: The Conservative spokesman was not happy with the arguments for the previous amendment, which would have removed private sellers, but private sellers will be removed from the arrangement if we delete the clause. I rise not to repeat the arguments that I have already made, but to try to elicit support from the Committee for removing private individuals from the process of producing home information packs.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 125 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 126 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 127 - Duty to have a home information pack

Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 344, in
clause 127, page 86, line 20, leave out 'have' and insert 
 'indicate whether or not he has.'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 346, in
clause 127, page 86, line 22, at end insert 
 'unless the property is explicitly advertised as being sold without a home information pack.'.

Matthew Green: The amendments go to the heart of part 5. They deal with whether home information packs should be compulsory. Members of the Committee may think that I am off on some strange trip, but I know that at least one member—in fact two, but only one is present—of this Committee has, as a member of a Select Committee, already concluded that they should not be compulsory. I have a copy of a report by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning and Local Government Committee on home information packs. Its response to the question whether packs should be compulsory was:
''At this stage, we cannot recommend that home information packs are made compulsory.''
 Two members of that Select Committee are serving on this Committee, and I hope that if the matter is put to a vote they will continue to back the view that they have already expressed. 
 Amendment No. 344 would make the provision of the home information pack voluntary. That the packs will be popular with buyers is the essence of the Government's assertion, but I am not convinced. If the Government were right, sellers would have every incentive to provide packs as a valuable marketing tool. If the packs were such a good idea, the market would dictate. Even the Minister has probably moved towards believing that the market can deliver on some things, although I should not push him too far down that line, lest he start to feel a bit uncomfortable.

Clive Betts: The hon. Gentleman referred to my hon. Friend the
 Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole) and me, and to the recommendations of the Select Committee. What we intended by the recommendation was to express our view that, because of concerns about the supply of inspectors and so on, there should be a bit more use of the pack on a trial basis. In particular, we wanted the pack to be rolled out across the country, rather than to have a big bang nationally all at once. We therefore said that the pack could be non-compulsory at first, and then be introduced gradually on a compulsory basis. It was not that the Select Committee objected in principle to compulsion; we simply thought that the packs could not be introduced all at once nationally on a compulsory basis.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman obviously knows why he agreed to what he said, and I will not challenge him on that. The report says:
''We recommend that the pack should be introduced nationally only when further research and extensive pilot-testing has been carried out in different parts of the country.''
 That report was produced last July. I am not convinced that, in the intervening period, further research and extensive pilot-testing have been carried out in different parts of the country. The report goes on: 
''It is essential to establish the extent to which the pack may have adverse effects in different types of markets.''
 That has not been done. Then, the report says: 
''At this stage, we cannot recommend that home information packs are made compulsory.''

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is probably right about that. I asked the Minister a little while ago about the pilot and the types of property involved. He was strangely silent when I asked him to confirm that the study that had been done was restricted to one geographical area and was therefore flawed. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is to be sceptical about the breadth of the further research.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman makes his point extremely well.
 The Government still have to make a case for making the packs compulsory. If the packs are wonderful, the market will drive demand for them. If the Government want to help to get them off the ground, they can provide fiscal incentives. I am sorry that the Under-Secretary is not here, because she could have made sure that word got to the right part of the Treasury about producing such fiscal incentives. 
 The Government are forcing people to do something, but at the same time saying, ''Don't worry, the scheme will be really popular.'' I struggle to reconcile the two. The Government normally have to force people to do something unpopular. The Minister has failed to convince me—and, I suspect, many others—that the packs should be made compulsory now. It seems that all the schemes under the Bill are to come into force simultaneously. The hon. Gentleman who were on the Select Committee were right to raise the issues that they did in their report.

Clive Betts: The Government response to the recommendations said:
''The power to make different provisions for different areas could also be used to facilitate a phased introduction of compulsory home information packs as part of a rollout across England and Wales, if this were found to be practicable and advantageous.''
 Our concern was that a big bang, all-at-once approach was not practicable, and the Government responded to that in an appropriate way.

Matthew Green: The problem is that the Select Committee report does not talk about a phased roll-out. Its concerns are that the packs
''should be introduced nationally only when further research and extensive pilot-testing has been carried out in different parts of the country.''
 That has not happened. I agree that the Committee did not completely rule out a compulsory introduction, but the report makes it clear that that should be done only after further research and extensive pilot-testing. That has not happened, so I hope that the hon. Members for Ipswich and for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) will support me if I press the amendment to a vote. 
 Amendment No. 346 would insert the phrase 
''unless the property is explicitly advertised as being sold without a home information pack''.
 It works with amendment No. 344 and allows for the home information pack being optional or voluntary. I hope that the amendments receive support on both sides of the Committee in line with the well thought out views of the Select Committee.

John Hayes: The hon. Member for Ludlow is right that the amendments would make home information packs voluntary, and I have considerable sympathy with that. I hope not to sound pedantic, but I am not sure that the amendments are the right way of doing that, although he made a strong case.
 There seems to be a strong and reasonable argument for improving the information available to buyers, but that might be better done through a partnership of all associated with the industry to introduce a better voluntary code. Warranties, where they exist, could be extended in a coherent and regulated way to meet national criteria in the way that the 10-year warranties already do. Searches could be improved by ensuring that all local authorities follow the example set by the vast majority and speed up the process by introducing electronic searches and setting stiff targets. Additional surveys could be made accessible to people at an affordable rate through proper agreement with the industry and by bringing on board those with the expertise to carry them out. That could all be done without the unnecessary obligation, additional regulation and intrusion of the packs. 
 Proposing such a code might have been a better way to proceed, and although the hon. Gentleman did not flesh out his argument as fully as that, I think that that is what he was implying. I am sympathetic to his case: for once—and I hope once only—the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives have found common cause.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman reminds me of one point that I meant to make. The Law Society
 operates a voluntary transact TransAction scheme, the take-up of which is growing quickly, and there is no reason to suggest that other voluntary systems would not be taken up. However, the key point is that both parties involved would have a choice: the seller could choose to produce a pack, and the buyer to buy a home that had a pack. We should leave such matters to individual choice rather than central diktat.

John Hayes: I did not know about that scheme, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for informing me—one does not often hear politicians saying that, so we should relish the moment. That is the kind of scheme that I was referring when I spoke earlier about the desirability of delivering through proper partnerships much of what the Minister, for good reasons, intends to introduce, but without the unnecessary regulation and intrusion provided by the packs.
 A contradiction was revealed in the exchange between the hon. Members for Sheffield, Attercliffe and for Ludlow, and in the Minister's remarks. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe—an ever-diligent member of this Committee and MP—drew attention to the fact that when the Select Committee examined the draft Bill, phased implementation was considered. Based on the Government's response, there was a strong suspicion that they might well go down that road because of the practical difficulties of doing everything at once. I referred to a practical difficulty when we debated an earlier amendment about the number of people qualified to implement the scheme. It seems that the Government have now abandoned that idea—or at least the Minister has not said that they have stuck with it and that they will phase in the scheme. They now seem to be very confident that the whole thing can be introduced in one hit by 2007. Therefore, there is a contradiction. The Minister might want to explain that when he sums up. 
 I do not think that we can support the amendments because this is not the right place to address this matter. However, I advise the hon. Member for Ludlow to watch this space, because I think that there will be other opportunities to achieve his objectives through agreement between his interest group and our great party.

Matthew Green: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he will not support the amendment if I press it to a Division?

John Hayes: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would want to press the amendment to a Division as that would expose the fact that only a third of the Liberal Democrats who are eligible to sit on this Committee have bothered to turn up this afternoon. However, if he does, we would have to take a considered view, drawing on the youthful enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire, the sagacity and experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet and the insight and wit of my hon. Friend the Member for Poole. I conclude on that happy note. I look forward to hearing the Minister's considered response to the important points that have been made.

Andrew Selous: I rise to support the thrust of the amendment, if not its precise form and its position in the Bill. I accept the general contention of the hon. Member for Ludlow that it would be better if home information packs were brought in on a voluntary basis. If they were established, they would quickly lead to a significant marketing advantage to the seller, and they would be useful to buyers. However, I have grave reservations about the expense of the packs, particularly the ongoing expense for people who are trying to sell properties that do not sell easily. Some properties may be on the market for a year or more; information would have to be renewed as it becomes out of date. Introducing the system on a compulsory basis is not justified because of the time delay caused to sellers who want to move quickly. However, I hope that it becomes best practice and that it is much used.

Clive Betts: I wish to return to the discussion we had about the Select Committee's point of view. I do not support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Ludlow because the Select Committee did not come to the view that the introduction of compulsory packs was a bad idea in principle. The Committee reflected on the information and evidence given to it and concluded that it wanted reassurance from the Government on several points of concern before it would be prepared to accept that immediate introduction on a national basis of a compulsory scheme was the right way to go. That is what Select Committees do.

Chris Mole: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Ludlow was being selective when he quoted from the recommendations of the Select Committee? He did not take account of the following statement:
''The Home Information Pack would create a better informed housing market, giving buyers a sounder basis on which to make offers.''

Clive Betts: Absolutely. The Committee was trying to take a balanced view and to say that it saw lots of good things, but that it had some concerns and wanted responses on those concerns before it took a definitive view.

Matthew Green: For the sake of the Committee, I shall read the entire paragraph—it is not very long—because we have just heard another selective quote.
''The Home Information Pack would create a better informed housing market, giving buyers a sounder basis on which to make offers. This is to be welcomed. However, it is unclear to what extent the Pack will serve the Government's objective of speeding up the process of residential property sales, and of reducing the proportion of sales falling through. It is also unclear what effect the Pack would have on the supply and hence prices in the housing market. We recommend that the Pack should be introduced nationally only when further research and extensive pilot-testing has been carried out in different parts of the country. It is essential to establish the extent to which the Pack may have adverse effects in different types of markets. At this stage, we cannot recommend that Home Information Packs are made compulsory.''
 I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is satisfied that 
''further research and extensive pilot-testing has been carried out in different parts of the country''?

Clive Betts: There clearly has been some research and some pilot-testing. Although there may be some points
 which I would like to hear more information from the Minister, in other responses he has promised that there would be research on the number of inspectors and the insurance arrangements for them, and that that research would be available for us to reflect on as part of our current deliberations.

Chris Mole: Again, one should refer to the Government's response. We need to place that in the context of the Minister's stated intention to implement by 2007. The Government said that they were
''considering the case for special arrangements for very low-value homes in areas of low demand.''
 That is an indication that the Government will undertake research on a localised and area basis to achieve their objectives before 2007.

Clive Betts: I agree. There are a number of areas in which the Government have indicated that they will carry out more research before the packs are finally introduced.
 My two main concerns were, first, whether we could train enough inspectors and, secondly, whether there would be adequate arrangements for insurance, so that when those inspectors make mistakes, which they will do in some cases, there will be proper redress for the individual who has relied on the home condition report they produced. The Government have promised to examine those issues, and the Minister has reassured us that they will consider the possibility of rolling those aspects out across the country as one way of dealing with the problem. I am pleased with the Government's response. 
 Hon. Members suggested that if measures are introduced but not made compulsory, the market will take over and implement them, but they have more faith in the market than I have. Sometimes markets do not work perfectly. Estate agents and solicitors may well like the traditional way of doing things and will not change unless they are pushed down a particular route. A view must be taken about whether the new scheme to be introduced is likely to benefit the house buying and selling process and to give more reassurance to the people engaged in it.

Andrew Selous: I challenge the hon. Gentleman on that point. If home information packs, by providing a real marketing advantage, will be as useful to sellers as to buyers, as he believes they will be, both buyers and sellers will want them—estate agents will not make the choice. If the people selling and buying houses want them, why is compulsion needed?

Clive Betts: In market arrangements as complicated as those in the housing market, it would be interesting to see whether sufficient pressure from buyers and sellers could be generated to push the professionals in that direction. The evidence that we took from Maria Coleman about Bristol, where the scheme had been up and running for a number of years, indicated that everyone was content with it. There was a very low drop-out rate among people who made offers on properties before completion, and when they did drop out, they were not charged the fee because the additional costs were rolled up into the fees for the sales that were completed. It was an interesting arrangement that worked well, and surveys of the
 buyers and sellers who were involved showed great satisfaction with the process. None the less, the scheme had not been replicated. It was successful and welcomed by the people who used it, but it was not replicated even among estate agents and solicitors in the Bristol area. That demonstrates that even a good scheme will not automatically be adopted and rolled out unless the Government intervene.
 Returning to the fundamental point, only a third of house buyers in this country get a proper survey done. When, as an MP, one has sat with somebody who has bought a house without a survey and it has all gone wrong and their lives have been devastated, one thinks that perhaps the Government ought to do something to protect people from themselves.

Keith Hill: That was a lively debate. My hon. Friends the members of the Select Committee have demonstrated that they keep up with events. They recognise that with time comes change and that the entire house selling and house purchasing community has been engaged in the process of rolling out the home information packs. They also recognise that assurances on insurance, training and certification sought by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe are now in place. It is precisely on the basis of that engagement with the whole house purchasing and house selling community that we look forward to a national roll-out after a trial period at the beginning of 2007. That is exactly what the industry is asking us to do. In the course of our exchanges today, I have been able to demonstrate that, step by step, in every aspect of the proposals, we have the necessary provisions and arrangements in place. Over the next three years we shall work to ensure that when implementation occurs, it does so successfully.
 The Committee has talked a lot about the clear benefits to consumers, so why on earth have not home information packs been used? To some extent, I am reminded of an issue with which in a previous incarnation I was extremely deeply engaged: the regulation of the minicab industry. I had to deal with it as a Back-Bench member of the Committee dealing with the excellent Bill ultimately brought in by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young). I later dealt with its implementation as a Transport Minister. That market was crying out for some form of intervention on behalf of consumers. In London and throughout the country, millions of people were engaged in daily personal interface with a wholly unregulated industry. There was no regulation of the vehicles used, the operators or the drivers. If we had left it to the industry, nothing would ever have happened. It is preposterous and unreasonable to expect that we should now introduce the HIP system on a voluntary basis. 
 Let me get rid of at least one canard that has been raised in the Committee. I have noticed before in Committees that a hare is set running and immediately everybody latches on to the pursuit as though it were gospel truth. On Second Reading the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton referred to the Law Society's TransAction scheme. ''Ho, ho!'' said the hon. Member 
 for South Holland and The Deepings, ''That sounds like an excellent idea and ought to be encouraged as a voluntary scheme.'' However, the Law Society's TransAction scheme has been in place for years. Has it had any take-up or any success? Not a jot. It is a failure. It is quite wrong to say that it is growing quite fast when, in fact, has got nowhere. 
 I need only persuade my hon. Friends on the Committee that if implementation of the scheme were left on a voluntary basis, it would simply not happen. There must be a compulsory roll-out of the scheme. The first point to bear in mind is that we are talking about consumer protection, not the inconvenience to estate agents—although I am delighted to say that the National Association of Estate Agents is now on board and involved in our scheme. The important point is the protection of consumers from failed transactions—one third of transactions fail—and the protection of the home buyer from the uncertainty, stress and the cost of a deeply flawed process. We on the Government Benches are not adopting the ''head in the sand, no change, trust the market, ignore consumers' interests'' attitude manifested by both Opposition parties. We put the consumer first and that is why we wholly support the home information packs.

Andrew Selous: There is a fundamental difference between regulating an industry or large businesses and interfering in the private transactions between individual consumers. The Minister is talking about regulating transactions between a Mrs. Smith and a Mrs. Jones. I hold no brief or candle for estate agents, who often does not behave particularly well, but he is talking about interfering and making it illegal for the buying and selling of properties to go on between members of the public without specific, costly and time-consuming measures being taken. That is different altogether from regulating the minicab industry, large companies, or anything else. I do not think that the Minister has recognised that in his remarks.

John Hayes: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Minister stretches the credulity of the Committee when he compares home information packs to proper intervention to regulate an industry that was running out of control. I agree with him about minicabs. Let it be said on the record, so there is no doubt, that I am not a blind disciple of the free market. The unregulated free market put boys up chimneys and girls down mines. I believe that the state has a responsibility to intervene on occasion and that local government and central Government can have a civilizing effect on the free market. I am not a 19th century-style Liberal—in fact, I am not any sort of Liberal. I am a Tory, and Tories have always understood that the law has to intervene to protect vulnerable people. Ours is the party of Disraeli, Shaftesbury and Wilberforce—

Peter Pike: Order. Let us not dwell on the Tory past and the Liberal past. Let us concentrate on the amendment.

John Hayes: When intervention is applied in the way that the Minister described it, it must be measured and considered and the burden that it brings must be
 properly assessed and costed. The problem is that we are faced with a half-baked, uncertain and unwanted measure that no one has demanded, and that the Government have seen fit to introduce because they promised long ago that they would do so, even though they are now embarrassed about it. That is the truth. This is not a philosophical argument about the rights and wrongs of intervening in the market when it needs to be regulated. It is a case of interference by Government at enormous cost to ordinary people, who will resent and regret it. If the Labour Government stay in office, they will regret it, too. This very good Minister, who has done the Committee so much service through his generosity and clarity, will, as he looks back on his political career in coming years, come to regret it as one of his blackest moments.

Matthew Green: I seem to have stirred the Committee up. It is nice for once to see a bit of passion in the debate, even if the Minister so comprehensively failed to take any interventions. If he had taken an intervention, I would have asked a simple question. Will he say how much extensive pilot-testing in different parts of the country has taken place since July 2003, when the Select Committee's report came out? I am sure that if there has been lots of pilot-testing, the Minister will leap to his feet and tell me about it all.
 No, he has not done so. That tends to suggest that the conditions set by the Select Committee have not been met. The two members of this Committee who are on the Select Committee have done a wonderful job of reinterpreting their own words. They ought to be recommended as Ministers in the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign Office.

Chris Mole: I want a better offer than that.

Matthew Green: Perhaps that remark ought to be put on the record.
 I am disappointed that the hon. Gentlemen have not stuck to their guns and come out fighting against the mandatory nature of the scheme and its being introduced all at once, before there has been sufficient pilot-testing and further research. 
 I was very impressed by the contribution made by the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire, because he hit the nail on the head. The difference between this scheme and the Minister's example of the regulation of cabs is that in the case of cabs, members of the public are, in effect, buying a service. They are not going to their next-door neighbour and saying, ''I'll give you a fiver if you take me down the shops.'' 
 Getting a cab is not a private transaction between two people. People were getting bad service and cabs needed regulating. 
 If the Government needed to regulate the service in the housing market, why have they not chosen to license estate agents, who are unlicensed and will continue to be so? The equivalent for the Minister of his cause célèbre is not these packs—it is the licensing of estate agents. The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire was right that in 5 per cent. of sales private transactions between two individuals and the Government are coming in and sticking a costly legal requirement between them. If the Minister thinks that that is wonderful and that everyone wants it, I think that he will be sadly—

Keith Hill: Disillusioned.

Matthew Green: That is precisely the word I was looking for. The Minister is being helpful; it would have been helpful if he had taken some interventions, but he chose not to. He was clearly on such shifting ground that he did not want to.
 I am very disappointed by the Minister's response. I am particularly disappointed that the Labour members of the Select Committee will not be able to join me in the vote. This issue is one that will have to be returned to, because it has exposed a fundamental flaw in the Bill. We might be able to frame an amendment, perhaps on Report, that would meet the requirements of the members of the Select Committee. I am sure that we can come up with an amendment that would help to meet their concerns, which the Government have so far failed to do. 
 Clearly, the amendment has excited the Committee; it clearly excited the Minister to such an extent that he became far more partisan than he normally is. However, I will not press the amendment to a Division. I think that we will return to the question of compulsion on Report, because it is the core of part 5. I believe that there will be considerable support for the position adopted by the Opposition parties, and I suspect that when the Bill reaches the other place it will be something that their lordships will want to examine very closely. It may be an area of some difficulty for the Government. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Further consideration adjourned—[Paul Clark.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Six o'clock till Tuesday 10 February at ten minutes past Nine o'clock.